I'm married and I don't drive.
Video_Game_King's forum posts
Are you suggesting you don't like Link Between Worlds?! That better not be what you're suggesting!
Well, I don't want to give anything away, but...
As for what I'm currently playing:
I feel split between playing Xenogears and playing Valkyrie Profile. Which road should I take first?— Vincent G. Kinian (@Video_Game_King) August 9, 2014
You were only discussing those elements insofar as they relate to playing the game. You didn't discuss the aesthetic or the actual narrative (a spare marine opens a portal to Hell on Mars, or something) or the music or any of the other elements outside the gameplay.
I have not satisfactorily summarized what it feels like to play Doom, I have really just described player input.
That's because there's more to Doom than its gameplay. (I am assuming gameplay means "the elements of play.") There's more to any game than just its gameplay. Given the nature of video games, all the elements of a game will inevitably overlap. However, it's still possible to separate them for discussion's sake, and then bring them back together to discuss how they affect one another.
Picking up health-restoring painkillers from a medical cabinet and picking up health-restoring kittens from a vacuum cleaner are the same gameplay mechanic if you divorce them from their narrative context, yet one of them would cause ludonarrative dissonance in a realistic military shooter and the other would not.
That has little to do with your interactions, but how the game presents itself. That's more an aesthetic (narrative) dissonance than a ludonarrative one. The classic example of ludonarrative dissonance is BioShock. Quoting Wikipedia:
Hocking coined the term in response to the game Bioshock, which according to him promotes the theme of self-interest through its gameplay while promoting the opposing theme of selflessness through its narrative, creating a violation of aesthetic distance that often pulls the player out of the gameLudonarrative
Its sequel runs into similar problems, allowing you to perform actions that wouldn't make sense for the world it creates. However, this brings up a bit of what you were saying in how elements overlap with one another.
Balrog and Vega should have the aliases Boxer and Claw, respectively. The international fighting community uses those terms for those characters to avoid confusion. (M. Bison is Dictator, but that's already on his page.)
Are you saying that things like music are not part of the game?
Yes and no. The way I see it, there are two popular uses of the word "game":
- The elements of play. (This is what ludology covers.)
- The sum of all its parts, including #1.
Obviously, the risk for equivocation is higher than it should be.
What do you mean by "game"?
Whoa. I guess in that sentence I mean anything covered by the ludo-prefix? People have argued that the ludo- is important to specify that it is the the game and the narrative that are dissonant, but consider this conversation:
A: I think Uncharted suffers from narrative dissonance.
B: Well, what is the narrative dissonant with?
A: The game.
It could also be dissonant with the music, as an example. Or any element that isn't the game.
It is quite clear from its first statement that it is the game Uncharted
And this is the problem I keep referencing: you use the term "game" to refer to two separate things. (It's the language's fault.) There's more to Uncharted than the game.
Maybe a Parody Character page would make more sense. Or "Characters Based On Real People." Although in that last case, you'd have to define real hard what you mean by that.
I think it's irrelevant because by the only discussions ludonarrative dissonance could conceivably be brought up in are discussions about games, and as such it should always be clear from the context that the thing the narrative is dissonant with is some aspect of the game.
What do you mean by "game"?
Getting rapped up in jargon is navel gazing. If one wants to educate laymen then it is possible to present what you are talking about where part of it is the discussion of the aspects that define the jargon.
What if you end up using more jargon to define the original term? That seems to be a potential problem for video game discourse.